ORDER

Mr. K.C. Sharma, Financial Commissioner. – This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order, dated 7.8.2002 and 20.2.2002, passed by the Learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Learned Collector, Kurukshetra, respectively.

2. The brief facts of this case are that due the death of Baru Ram, Lambardar, resident of village Samaspur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra on 14.5.2001, his son Baljit Singh applied the Tehsildar, Thanesar, that he may be appointed Lambardar against the vacant post, Proclamation was made in the village to fill up vacant post of Lambardar against which only two candidates applied namely; Jog Dhian and Baljit Singh. After completing all the formalities and hearing both the candidates, Tehsildar, Thanesar, recommended the name of Baljit Singh for the Post of Lambardar to S.D.O. (C) Thanesar, who after hearing the parties, found that Baljit Singh was 5th class pass and Jog Dhian was illiterate, Baljit Singh had better behaviour in the village and in this connection, the Members Panchayat and 41 villagers had supported him. On the other side, only one Member Panchayat had supported Jog Dhian and he had deposited nothing in the Small Saving at the time of Proclamation. Baljit Singh had deposited Rs. 10,000/- in Small Saving and his name was recommended by all the Lower Courts. On these facts, Learned Collector, Kurukshetra, vide his order, dated 20.2.2002, appointed Baljit Singh as Lambardar of village Samaspur against the vacant post against which an Appeal was filed before the Learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who vide his order, dated 7.8.2002, found no illegality in the Order, passed by the Lower Court and rejected the appeal, being baseless. Hence this Revision Petition.

3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the beginning of the argument reiterated his old stand of Encroachment by the Respondents on one Kanal land of Gram Panchayat, village Samaspur and further contended that the Petitioner’s father, Rulia Ram, was a Lambardar and the Respondent’s father, Baru Ram, was only a Sarbra of his father and Learned Lower Courts had wrongly given the benefits of hereditary claim to the Respondent. He also contended that his Additional qualifications of deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in Small Saving after the Report of ACIG, in the Lambardari contest, should have also been counted. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also assailed the bonafide of Academic Qualifications of the Respondents, which has been stated as 5th Pass but there is no Certificate, to this effect. As per Naksha Lambardari the petitioner is 3rd pass but his claim has been ignored. On the basis of these arguments, he has prayed that the Impugned Decisions of Learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Learned Collector, Kurukshetra, be set aside and the Petitioner be appointed as Lambardar.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, Baljit Singh, referred the attention of this Court to Exhibit R-1, copy of the Khasra Girdawari according to which the land under alleged encroachment has been entered as “Mackbooja Panchayat Deh” and he no more remains an Encroacher after the death of the Respondent’s father.  The Respondent and his brother gave an application to the Gram Panchayat and to the Tehsildar, Thanesar, for correction of Khasra Girdawari thereby, actively disassociating themselves from the entry of Encroachment in favour of their deceased father, Baru Ram. He has referred the attention of this Court to Certificate of Gram Panchayat, dated 1.10.2001 which states that Respondent is not an Encroacher on the Disputed Land in Revenue Record and nor he is in actual possession of the same.  As regards the qualifications of the petitioner, Jog Dhian, are concerned, he is illiterate person as proved by the Application for Lambardar dated 26.7.2001, which is only Thumb-Marked. As regards the Education Certificates of the Respondents, it is placed at page 31 of the Collector’s File.  Therefore, he has prayed that petitioner, Jog Dhian, being prima facie a person of Criminal Character on the basis of a Challan, dated 3.10.1986 FIR No. 176 under Excise Act, which was registered in the Police Station, Sadar, Thanesar, and has lesser qualification, is not fit to hold the office of Lambardari as compared to the Respondent.

5. I have heard the Learned Counsel on both sides and gone through the Orders of Learned Lower Courts.  The only stigma which could stand against Baljeet Singh was about the alleged Encroachment recorded in the Revenue Record in favour of deceased father, who was Sarbra Lambardar of the father of the petitioner, Rulia Ram.  The successors of Baru Ram has actively disassociated themselves from the entry of Encroachment and therefore, they are free from Stigma at present.  Therefore, the very basis of the admission of the present R.O.R. in limine goes off and Petition is dismissed on the conclusive finding that the Respondent is more merited and he has been rightly appointed as Lambardar.

Petition Dismissed

**********